tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 23, 2009 10:00am-12:59pm EDT
that, susan? host: do you have access to the
internet, sir? caller: yes, i do. host: go to globe.com, it is a hometown story for them and since it happened, there is extensive coverage. the actual events as they transpired are really the subject of the discussion, so it is i would rather have you read it from the newspaper rather than me to -- sorry, it is boston.com, not globe.com. it is the globe newspaper up there. i think they will have lots of background about what both sides are saying happened as the arrest was made. thanks for your call. damascus, oregon, carol, the republican line. caller: yes, i have a couple of questions that i don't think have been answered regarding the medical care, and that is am i going to be treated with efficiency and effectiveness or stuck in a waiting list? here is an example.
i woke up tuesday with a sore arm.
when i woke up wednesday, i couldn't lift it. i didn't know what was wrong with it. i don't have medical -- host: we're out of time. what is your closing comment? caller: the closing comment is are we getting stuck on a waiting list to get healthcare or can we get into our doctor and be treated effectively? host: you the last word. thank you all for being with us. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. and the house is in session today and they will be talking about major house appropriations. . undersecretary of defense, washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, enlighten our eyes that we may see clearly your purposes for our great
country and grant your wisdom to these dedicated leaders. provide the ability to discern the good from the best, the workable from the unhandy, the useful from the frivolous. make us to choose the harder right over the easier wrong. i ask this day for your energy and benediction on the work of this body, on the decisions to be made and in the agreements to be struck. protect our troops today and change the hearts of those who wish ill against our nation. i also ask your divine blessing on each house member, their families and their staffs. with gratitude to you, most high god, i pray in the name of my savior, the lord jesus christ. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1
the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, congressman johnson. mr. johnson: thank you. will you join me in the pledge to our nation? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from alaska, congressman young, is recognized for one minute. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: thank you, madam speaker. today it was my great privilege to welcome reverend mark campbell to the house of representatives. reverend campbell and his wife, shelly, are active duty in the united states air force, ministering our brave men and women in uniform. reverend campbell is currently the chaplain for the office of the secretary defense, office
of family community and policy. he works as a consultant on religious affairs. supports families. prior to serving as a chaplain in the air force, he pastored the baptist church in anchorage, alaska. he served in bases around the world. he's a shining example of those of us who preach the good news to all creations. i thank reverend campbell for his prayer today and being here today for leading the invocation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 10 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. van hollen: i rise in support of statutory pay-go
legislation that passed the house yesterday. this legislation is not perfect. of course, i'm finding in my first seven months here in congress that no legislation we pass in this house is perfect. such is the nature of legislating and the compromise that comes with it. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, in my view are incorrect in that this legislation is not a positive step in restoring us to the financial discipline that led us to the large surpluses in the 1990's. statutory pay-go holds the federal government to the simple but important principles that american families demand of themselves. you cannot spend money that you do not have, and when one part of your budget expands, another must tighten. the passage of statutory pay-go proves the house of representatives can learn a lesson from the families we represent by ensuring that both new tax and entitlement legislation alike is paid for. the large deficits we inherited as a result of the borrow and spend policies of the past have
put tresh on funding for education, clean energy and other important investments. our national priorities will no longer be held hostage to our lack of self-restraint when it comes to spening. we must balance short -- spending. we must balance short-term deficit spending in order to ensure economic recovery and having financial discipline in the long term. this begins with yesterday's commitment to statutory pay-go. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise, the minority leader? mr. boehner: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. boehner: madam speaker and my colleagues, last night the president addressed our nation about the issue of health care. and there was some statements made by the president last night that aren't quite accurate. one, he said that we will keep government out of health care decisions. now, if that's the case, i
wonder why there was $200 million set aside in the stimulus bill earlier this year so that the government could do, quote, comparative analysis to determine which treatment was most effective in terms of potential cure for a disease. this is clearly going to give the government information that they believe is the best treatment when the doctors and their patients may not agree. and secondly, i'd point out, that if you look at an amendment that was offered in the energy and commerce committee the other night, the amendment said real simple, that no got bureaucrat will make any decisions or interfere with any decision between a doctor and their patient. and i would add that that amendment was rejected on a party line vote. secondly, the president said if you like your current plan we
will give you the option to keep it. i wish that were true, but as i noted the other day on the floor, under the ariesa provision, i would believe -- erisa provision, i would believe that many companies would drop their company health care plan because after five years it's going to have to be approved by the department of labor and the health care choices czar to ensure that the company plan met certain federal standards. i have to tell you this is going to drive a lot of companies offering the insurance that people have today. they will a have no option but to go to the government plan. and thirdly, he said that no plan will add to our deficit. well, the congressional budget office last friday came out and said the plan that's being considered will add $239 billion to our deficit over the next 10 years, and if you look further at this plan, you'll see that while there's -- the
cost of the plan is $1.6 trillion, the tax increases don't go into effect until 2011, but the cost of the plan doesn't really add up for about five years. so when you get into the outyears beyond 10 years you see these exploding deficits because it's going to cost $200 billion to $300 billion more over and above the tax increases that are already in this plan. at a time when we have record deficits and record spending here in washington we don't need to be adding to the deficit. and lastly, the president said republicans want to kill health care reform and have not offered better ideas. i have to tell you, i said earlier this year when i handed speaker pelosi the gavel, i said when republicans had to oppose our new president or our colleagues across the aisle it was our obligation to say you ho we would do it about the bether. we had a better solution on the stimulus bill.
we had a better solution on the budget. we believe we had a better solution on the energy bill that was here last month. we have offered our better solution on health care. we outlined those in a letter to the president back in may when we asked for a meeting and got a nice polite letter back from the president that said, well, thank you for your ideas, but we'll see you at the end of the process. republicans have a better solution that won't put the government in charge of people's health care, that will make sure that we bring down the cost of health care for all americans and ensure affordable access for all americans. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. klein: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. klein: madam speaker, yesterday this house passed legislation that will restore fiscal discipline by requiring the united states government to only spend what it can truly afford. the statutory pay-as-you-go act will roll back deficits and require all new legislation
which reduces revenues or expand spending to be paid for. this is a critical piece of common sense. at long last congress will be required to file the -- follow the policies that families in my south district of florida do every day. only spend a dollar if you can save a dollar somewhere else. the last time pay-go was in place in the 1990's we saw budget surpluses. after they lapsed in 2002, the lack of fiscal discipline allowed deficits to balloon. fiscal responsibility is one of my personal core values. it is what my wife and i teach our children and it should guide every decision we make in government. this bill marks a turning point in the fiscal health of our nation. it won't happen overnight but starting today we will begin to cut our deficit and return to surpluses. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? mr. fleming: request unanimous consent to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection, so ordered. mr. fleming: thank you, madam speaker. earlier this week four members of the president's cabinet, including secretary sebelius, came to my home state of louisiana to build grassroots support for obamacare in the rural areas. but they found themselves defending the administration's broader effort to take over the nation's health care system. to say they were greeted by skepticism would be an understatement. the anger over the direction of this country is moving was best expressed by a gentleman who told the group, please carry a message to mr. obama that it will be a cold day in hell before he socializes my country. the administration and a small group of very liberal democrats are intent on pittsburghing through a government takeover of health care -- on going through a government takeover of health care. a health care plan will hurt the sacred relationship between americans and their doctors, deny access to needed treatments and place power in
the hands of washington bureaucrats. why are you in such a rush? are you afraid americans will learn the truth this time and stop it? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. fleming: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. braley: madam speaker, on tuesday there was a long parade of my friends from the other side coming down here to the well to talk about the problems with the democratic health care bill. and you just heard the distinguished minority leader talking about the cost of this bill. well, this is a stark reality, america. america can no longer wait for health care reform. every person in this country pays a hidden tax of $1,200 a year, every family in this country pays a hidden tax of $1,800 a year to take care of people right now who don't have health insurance but still get health care. that's the reality we're dealing with and that's why we are working hard to try to transform our health care
delivery system. and my friend from louisiana just spoke is a perfect example of what's wrong. right now we know that in our country the states that provide the highest quality of care to medicare patients get paid the least while the state of louisiana spends more per medicare patient than any other state and ranks 50th on medicare quality assessments. that's why democrats are leading the charge to change the way we transform our health care system. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. johnson: thank you, ma'am. think about this concept of government-managed health care for just a minute. manage that the federal government told you can have your house for free. that sounds good, right? until they tell you you have to live in government housing.
now what? how many people want to leave their houses for government subsidized housing? polls show that people learn about the government controlled health plan the more they learn the less they support it. increasing the number of americans who have health insurance is a laudable goal we all want to achieve but paying $1.5 trillion part of the way -- just gets you part of the way with a government plan that eliminates choice and stiffles the patient-doctor relationship. mr. president, scrap this bill and let's start over on real health care reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. inslee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . >> our medical costs are rising
three times faster than our wages and consumes as much of our economy as it did just 12 years ago. the status quo is unacceptable. now, some of my colleagues want to defend the status quo, trying to scare americans thinking we are going to deliver bad medical care. is the medical care at the mayo clinic in rochester, minnesota bad? i don't think so. we are improving this bill as we speak, is going to provide the kind of care that americans are getting at the mayo clinic. because when our bill passes, it will allow doctors to do what they do at the mayo clinic for half the price that they are paying in miami, florida. half the price of what americans are paying for medical care. we need reform. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?
mr. poe: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: madam speaker, let me say this, that the mayo clivenic op -- clinic opposes this bill. and it's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise. >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> those with and without health insurance share something in common, they both lack stability and security when it comes to coverage and quality of health care. americans are forced into tough decisions and circumstances that lead them to lose their health care. as the president mentioned last night, 14,000 americans a day are losing their health care. health insurance reform means stable coverage that can't be taken away. if your spouse is laid off or changes jobs, you won't lose your coverage. if you, your family or co-worker
gets sick, you won't pay more. with health insurance reform, no one is able to get between you and your doctor and keep government out of health care decisions and allowing you to keep the coverage. stability has been missing from our system for decades. as we work to get our economy moving again, now is the time to fix it. the proposed health insurance reform bill builds upon what works and fixes what's broken. my constituents strongly want, need and deserve a more stable and secure health care system and that's what we need to fight to do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. small businesses face challenging economic threats. those who can afford to are struggling to provide health care to their employees. last thing small businesses need and we have had 2.56 million jobs lost since the new
president came into office, are more mandates and tax hikes that will destroy jobs. under their health care tax, democrats are proposing just that. they believe small businesses should abide by government mandates and suffer an 8% tax or fines up to half a million dollars. this is no way to treat the job creating engine of our economy. republicans have solutions for affordable, accessible and portable health care without tax hikes on families and small businesses. we reject the rationing of health care and government intrusion and propose flexibility for small businesses to band together for affordable health care. republicans have solutions that will empower individuals, not big government. we will promote new jobs. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget september 11 or the global war on terror. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does gentlelady from pennsylvania rise? mrs. dahlkemper: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mrs. dahlkemper: i talk about the need for health care reform in this country that must ensure patients can choose their doctors, which is portable as they grow old, change jobs and face health problems. must protect those with pre-existing conditions and address prevention. i receive couptless calls about the need to fix what's broken and protect what is broken. last night on this floor, i heard a colleague from the other side of the aisle say all americans have health care today, the emergency room. tell that to my constituents, like karla. she is 49 years old and suffers from severe arthritis. she had to change jobs because she was denied worker's comp. and she was laid off due to
economic conditions. now unemployed, she is without health insurance, insurance she needs to help cover her doctors' visit and prescriptions. she is the victim of a failed system. we need health care reform in this country to make sure americans are not left behind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. neugebauer: permission to address the house for one minute. the democrats and the administration don't think the american people are either smart enough or don't trust them to make their own decisions. the democrats and the administration have introduced a reform for financial markets that are going to start telling the american people, hey, you aren't smart enough or we don't trust you. we don't think you are smart enough to determine what kind of mortgage you should take out. we don't trust you and don't think you are smart enough to determine what kind of car lean you should have.
and don't think you are smart enough to determine what kind of checking account you should have. we are going to tell them we don't think you are smart enough to pick your own health care. the american people are tired of democrats telling them they don't trust them or aren't smart enough. republicans have introduced financial reform that says to the american people, we think you're smart enough when you have the right information. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does gentlelady from hawaii rise? ms. hirono: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. hirono: rather than emulate strategy of the previous administration, president obama signed the american recovery and reinvestment act less than a month after taking office. now, just five months after its passage some on the other side of the aisle are proclaiming it a failure. in january, 2009, before passage of the recovery act, the economy
lost 741,000 jobs, foreclosures were at record highs and the economic growth rate had hit negative 6.3%, some $10 trillion had been lost in the stock market. it allows teachers, law enforcement officials, firefighters to stay on the job to educate our children and protect our public, to call this a failure is putting rhetoric over people. more than $20 billion has been made available to fund over 6,000 shovel-ready projects. over 2,500 of which are under way. the recovery act is not a cure-all to our economy's problems but it has and will continue to make a difference for the better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> ask for unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, so ordered. >> president obama held a prime time press conference in which he repeated the health care claims which are making their way around capitol hill, but what are the myths versus realities? some claim it will not add to our deficit, but the nonpartisan congressional budget office has released its cost estimates showing it will increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years. another claim is that no one will lose health insurance they have right now. this defies reality. according to a study, 114 million americans will be forced out of their current health care coverage. washington-run health care will mean more deficits, more debt and government interference in our lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico rise? mr. childers: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.
mr. childers: madam speaker, i rise today to honor an exceptional constituent from my, mr. billy jack miller, who was awarded the 2009 american red cross real hero award. this summer, billy jack was presented the good samaritan award for rescuing a person from drowning where he has operated a fishing guide service. the man he saved fell into the lake and became trapped between the dock and the boat. the good samaritan award honors outstanding individuals who ex emapplyfies the spirit of heroism and hue man tarism and a commitment to improving the lives of others. billy jack deserves this achievement. working on the water, he has developed the knack for spotting fellow bothers in distress and always there to lend a helping hand. i'm proud to have the opportunity to commend the work of billy jack miller, a great
citizen of elephant butte, new mexico. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bachus: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. bachus: thank you. madam speaker, i received a letter yesterday from a lady, an officer in a small community bank in alabama and i wanted to share what she said with my colleagues. she expresses her concerns that many community bankers are expressing about the legislation under consideration by the house financial services committee to create a new government bureaucracy, otherwise known as the consumer finance protection agency. here's what she says, i strongly support consumer protections. in fact, my bank's competitive edge rests with our customers'
implicit trust that we will dea with them fairly and honestly when they visit my bank. with their best interests in mind, don't take that ability from me to meet their unique needs. she points out that thrir countless examples of local bankers offering nonstandard loan products to consumers and customers in an effort to meet their unique needs, not to victimize them, but to give them a product that fits their purpose. under the proposed protection agency, however, community banker -- and here's her quote, would have a harder time helping their customers and go through regulatory hurdles. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. kagen: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kagen: i have some excellent
news for the p people of northeast wisconsin like mike and jenny and jeff. access to affordable health care will be enacted this year by this congress. after all, how can we continue the losing ways of the past with discrimination against citizens due to pre-existing conditions was allowed to take place. you're going to hear arguments from one side and the other, but we stand on the side of the american people who understand this, there should be be no discrimination due to any citizen due to pre-existing medical conditions. we don't diss krim in a nature on the color of your skin. and the bill that is moving forward will guarantee other things as well. it will guarantee small businesses will be able to reduce their costs for health care and allow them to employ more people and stimulate our economy at the greatest time of need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> address the house for one minute. people tell me they are worried about the direction our country is headed. all we have seen is bailouts and government takeovers. we are nationalizing huge sectors of our economy. banking industry and financial sector, home mortgage companies, car companies, energy sector with cap and trade and our friends on the other side want to nationalize the health care sector. 17% of our economy, a government takeover with new government mandates. and one of those hidden mandates is for abortion coverage in every insurance plan public or private in america. at a time when abortions are declining, the number of abortion clinics are declining, the congress and white house want to mandate abortion coverage in every insurance plan, public or private. another bailout in this bill. this one for the abortion
industry. and what will the result be? less jobs, more taxes, massive government spending and a mountain of debt on our kids and grand kids. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. ellison: revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. ellison: martin luther king spoke of the fierce urgency of now and he talked about the fact you can't set a deadline on somebody else's freedom. there is another civil rights movement going on and that is the right for health care. health care is what we need now and we cannot delay. i urge my colleagues to come together and pass the health care reform bill before we go out for august recess, because people absolutely need it. people who are fearing being dropped or put off from pre-existing conditions, people being subject to discrimination because of their age or gender. we've got to stop this and make
sure that a caring nation cares for the health of its people. the time is now. we cannot delay. we have had enough time, madam speaker. six decades america has debated about what to fix. we have 45 hours of markup, 250 pages of bill and work to make sure that we have every input and every view point is shared. the time is now. and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. roe: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. roe: president obama asked congress to pass health care reform. as a physician, i'm glad he strongly urges reform. i want to correct something he said about why republicans oppose this plan. first, he said that a public plan is needed to keep insurance companies honest. republicans wholeheartedly
embrace reform. we don't like a government-run system where care is provided not because it's the best, but because it cost the least or worse is rationed. second, he said the wealthiest of americans should shoulder the burden for everyone's health care with a surtax. what he didn't say the same wealthier americans are those we rely on to reduce this staggering unemployment rate. you can't have it both ways. we can't dramatically increase taxes to the wealthiest americans and then turn around and expect job creation. we support insuring patients, reforming the insurance industry, have cost containment and tax credits. let's get these ideas, sit down and hammer out a bipartisan compromise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1, i
hereby notify -- the form of my resolution -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized to give his notice. mr. price: thank you, madam speaker. whereas the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, submitted an amendment to the committee on rules to h.r. 3288, the transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act, 2010. whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have required that none of the funds made available in this act be used to establish, issue, implement, administer or enforce any prohibition or restriction on the otherwise lawful possession or use of firearms in federally assisted housing. whereas the second amendment of the united states constitution guarantees that, quote, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unquote. whereas the second amendment applies equally to all americans regardless of who
owns or pays for their housing. whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable rules of the house for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process but regrettably the house democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for open debate on this floor. and whereas the speaker, ms. pelosi, the democrat leadership, and the chairman of the committee on appropriations, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill. now, therefore, be it resolved that h.res. 669, the rule to accompany h.r. 3288, be amended to allow the gentleman from georgia's amendment to be considered and voted on in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9 a resolution offered
from the floor by the member other than the majority leader or minority leader as question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two lg legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the resolution formerly noted by the gentleman from georgia will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point -- that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: madam speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of rule 9, i hereby notify the house of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is now recognized to give his notice. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam speaker. whereas the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, along with the gentleman from texas, mr. congressaway, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, and
the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, submitted an amendment to the committee on rules to h.r. 3288, the transportation and housing and urban development appropriations act. whereas the gentleman's amendment would have encouraged the development and use of alternative fuels by the federal government from resources found abundantly in the united states and canada such as oil sands and oil shale, furthering our ability to become more energy independent, reducing the federal government's energy cost borne by the american taxpayer. whereas this is especially important at a time of record deficit that has reached $1 trillion for the first time in america's history. and a record debt that will be tripled in 10 years. whereas the said amendment could help in the creation of desperately needed jobs in an economy where the unemployment rate is now 9.5%, the highest unemployment rate in 26 years and climbing.
and 2.6 million people have lost their jobs since february, 2009. whereas when campaigning for the presidency, then senator obama said that, quote, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, unquote. whereas on june 26, 2009, the democratic majority passed such legislation in h.r. 2454, a national energy tax, also known as cap and trade, that experts have estimated will result in american families paying anywhere from $1,500 to $300 annually in additional energy cost. whereas on december 6, 2006, then minority leader nancy pelosi said, quote, we promised the american people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will, unquote. whereas according to then minority leader nancy pelosi's
new direction for america, quote, bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. whereas a similar amendment was adopted by the house in 2008 during consideration of h.r. 6599, the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations act, 2009, on a bipartisan vote. whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable rules of the house for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process. but regrettably, the house democratic leadership has dramatically breached decades of house precedent and historically reduced the opportunity for open debate on this floor. whereas, the speaker, ms. pelosi, the democratic
leadership, and the chairman of the committee on appropriations, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill. now, therefore, be it resolved that h.res. 669, the rule to accompany h.r. 3288, be amended to allow the gentleman from texas' amendment to be considered and voted on in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9, a resolution offered by -- from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from state of texas will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege.
that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: madam speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of rule 9, i hereby notify the house of my intention to offer a resolution asking the question of the privileges of the house. the form of my resolution is as follows -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized to give notice of his resolution. mr. broun: whereas the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, submitted an amendment to the committee on rules to h.r. 3288, the transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act of 2010. whereas the said the gentleman's amendment would have required that none of the funds made available in this act be used for bike pass. whereas transportation appropriations have previously been used to build and repair bike paths. whereas the construction and repair of bike paths is not a
legitimate function of the federal government. since they do not contribute to interstate transportation, nor to interstate commerce. whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all applicable rules of the house for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process but regrettably the house leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for open debate on this floor. and whereas the speaker, ms. pelosi, the democratic leadership, and the chairman of the appropriations -- committee on appropriations, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on amendments by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule. now, therefore, be it resolved that house resolution 669, the rule to accompany h.r. 3288 be
amended to allow the gentleman from georgia's amendment to be considered and voted on in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9, a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedent only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from georgia will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes the question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. mr. broun: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. tiahrt: madam speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of rule 99, i hereby notice the
house to offer a resolution as a question of privilege of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized to give notice of his resolution. mr. tiahrt: may i read the resolution, madam chair? the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized to give notice. mr. tiahrt: whereas the gentleman from kansas, mr. tiahrt, submitted an amendment to the committee on rules to h.r. 3288, transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act of 2010. whereas the said the gentleman's amendment would have been prohibited -- would have prohibited salaries and expenses from being paid to individuals who obligate money under the stimulus fhwa program for road signs that are placed at construction signs to alert motorists that the construction is being paid by the stimulus. whereas the amendment would have been in order under an
open amendment process. but regrettably the democratic leadership has -- whereas the speaker, ms. pelosi, and the democrat leadership and the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. obey, prevented the house from voted on my -- on this amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill. now, therefore, be it resolved that h.res. 669, the rule to accompany 3288 to be amended a to allow the gentleman from kansas' amendment be voted on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: a resolution offered on the floor other than the majority or minority leader as question of the privileges of the house has only immediate precedent designated at a time designated by the chair. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from kansas will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this time
point a determination whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution. . for what purpose does gentlelady rise? mrs. bachmann: pursuant to clause 2-a-1 i offer a resolution of the question of the privileges of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized to give notice of her resolution. mrs. bachmann: i thank the speaker. raising a question of the privileges of the house, whereas the gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, submitted an amendment to the committee of rules to h.r. 3288, transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations act,
2010. where the amendment would have protected american taxpayers by prohibiting funds made available in the act from being used to fund any organization that has been indicted for violations of state or federal election laws or that employed people who have , such as the association of community organizations for reform now or acorn, whereas a similar provision was adopted by the house in 2008 during consideration of h.r. 3221, the housing and economic recovery act of 2008 and became law on june 30, 2008, does not currently apply to all programs funded in the underlying bill. whereas the gentlewoman's amendment complied with all applicable rules of the house to amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process, but regrettably the
house democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity to protect the american taxpayers on this floor, and whereas the speaker, mrs. pelosi, the democratic leadership and the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill. now therefore, be it resolved that h. resolution 669, the rule to he accompany h.r. 3288 be amended to allow the the gentlewoman from minnesota's amendment be considered and voted on in the house. the speaker pro tempore: under the rule 9, a resolution offered from the floor by a member owner the majority leaderor minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly
noticed. pending that zegs, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentlelady from minnesota will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at the time designated for the consideration of the resolution. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. arcuri: i thank the speaker for recognition. by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 669 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 94, house resolution 669, resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house and state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 3288, making
appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 and 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and not exceed one hour equally controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read through page 160, line 6. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, except as provided in section 2, no amendments shall be made in order except one, the
amendments printed in part a of the report on the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. two, not to exceed seven of the amendments printed in part b of the committee on rules is offered by representative flake of arizona or his designee and three not to exceed two of the amendments printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules if offered by mr. hensarling of texas. each such amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable by 10 minutes equally controlled by a pro popet and opponent and not be subject to demand for division of the question. the proponent of any such amendment may modify its language before the question is put thereon all points of order are waived except those arising
under clause 9 and 10 of rule 21. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. in the case of sun dry amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the house engross and without division of the question. the previous question shall be considered and amendments thereto without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section two, after disposition of the amendments specified in the first section of this resolution, the chair and ranking minority member on the committee of appropriations or their designee, each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill which shall be controlled by the proponent. section three, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee.
the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section four, during consideration of h.r. 3288, the chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule 18 and clauses 8 and 9 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise snr mr. flake: i raise a point of order against h.r. 644 it violates. the resolution contains a waiver against all consideration of the bill and contains a waiver of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of rule 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona makes a point order that it violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman has met the
threshold version and the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. after that debate, the chair will put the question of consideration. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: again, i rise today not because of this bill may or may not violate the unfunded mandates act, it may or may not. the question here is why, again -- we are near the end of the appropriations cycle and we have been living under what is the equivalent of legislative martial law where the majority has stated that they cannot allow appropriations bills to come to the floor because we have to get through this process and move through it. the appropriations committee chairman said, quote, there is a limited number of hours between now and the time we recess. if we want to get our work done, we have to limit the debate time that we spebbed spend on these bills.
appropriating is the most important thing that congress does. we maintain the power of the purse under article 1. this is our responsibility and to say we have to move through it quickly and deny the minority party the ability to offer ealts simply because we have to make the trains run on time here. when the republicans were in the majority, one member said the other day that he was in the chair for over three days on the interior bill, simply because members on the majority side and minority side had a lot of amendments they wanted to offer. three days on the interior bill. here, we are allowing just an afternoon, less than a day on the defense bill next week that contains more than 1,000 earmarks that haven't been vetted by the appropriations committee, 540 of which are no-bid contracts to private companies.
and we aren't allowing probably but a few, if history holds, amendments to that bill and likely will be amendments if the majority chooses. last week, on a previous appropriation bill, i asked for unanimous consent 16 times on 16 amendments that i had to allow us to substitute an amendment that one of my colleagues had offered that was not allowed. so making the point that this isn't an issue of time. the time constraints were already set. we wanted to substitute many amendments that we thought were maybe more important that members were denied the ability to offer and were rejected. objections were raised 16 times to unanimous consent requests simply to substitute amendments. we know what this is about, it's not about an issue of time, although that is a sorry excuse, frankly, when appropriating
dollars is the most important thing we do here. we shouldn't limit ourselves to just a few days to get the appropriations process done on the floor. but even if you accept that, the minority party simply wanted to offer the amendments it wanted to offer, not the ones that majority party had chosen the minority party to offer and denied 16 times. here again today, we will be discussing a bill, more than 70 amendments were offered, only 24 were ruled in order. we just had four, five members offer privileged resolution to make the point that their amendments which should have been allowed were not allowed the minority party. this isn't the way this house ought to be run. we are breaking from tradition here in the appropriations process and at a time when we need more than ever to scrube these appropriation bills and make sure we aren't spending
money that we shouldn't be spending. we have a deficit that will near $2 trillion this year. when i came to congress eight years ago, that was almost the entire federal budget. now our budget deficit will equal that amount. and yet we are throwing appropriation bills on the floor and saying we have to get them done and not allowing the minority party to offer amendments they would like to offer. while the majority party may think they can get away with it, because process arguments don't mean much outside the beltway, but a bad process begets bad policy and it will come back to bite. it just doesn't come back top haunt the majority party but this institution. we ought to have more regards to this institution than to simply break and deny the minority
party the ability to offer amendments it would like to offer. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. arcuri: madam speaker, i rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: this point of order is not about anything other than delaying the passage of this very important bill. and i would say to my friend from arizona that he, himself, has probably received more amendments from the rules committee than the rest of congress put together, so he certainly has had an opportunity to offer many amendments with respect to different earmarks that he feels should be removed from the bill. so i would submit that this point of order is really about delaying the passage of what is a critically important bill, and
that is, the transportation appropriation bill, a bill that talks about things like funding roads so we have safe highways, things like high-speed rail so we can bring people and goods from point a to point b as quickly as possible. that's why the consideration of this rule and the passage of this rule is so important so we can consider this critically important bill. i hope my colleagues will vote he yes so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it by virtue of a procedural motion. those who oppose the bill can vote against the final passage. we must consider this rule and we must pass this legislation today. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim 30 seconds to answer the gentleman.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. flake: i thank the chair, i'm not trying to delay the process. i could call a vote and waste 30 minutes. i'm not going to. i know the outcome here. that's not the point. the gentleman has mentioned that i have been given a lot, i have, but the majority knows they can beat them. and when i have offered substitutes on some of my colleagues' amendments that were germane and weren't ruled in order, objections were raised 16 times to do that. so this isn't about time, but about the majority wanting only the amendments that it wants to see on the floor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i yield back the balance of my time. and i urge a yes vote on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back his time. all time having expired the
question is on whether the house will now consider the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the question is decided in the affirmative. the gentleman from new york is recognized for one hour. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam speaker. for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. all time yielded in consideration of the rule is for purpose of debate only. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. arcuri: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today as a member of the rules committee and also in strong support of h.r. 3288,
the fiscal year 2010 transportation, h.u.d. appropriations act, h.r. -- h.res. 669. it provides for consideration of h.r. 3288 under a structured rule. the rule provides one hour of general debate controlled by the committee on appropriations. the rule makes in order a teelt of 23 -- total of 23 amendments, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. and it provides one motion to motion to recommit -- one motion to recommit with or without instructions. we get a double return on our investment. as we've seen with the recovery bill, investment in infrastructure, not only generates economic recovery by putting people back to work, but those construction jobs strengthen our transportation system and improve our housing stock. we not only put people to work
but we also get something in the long run. we get better roads. we get better safer -- safer transportation. some of the members of the transportation infrastructure committee would like to see a greater percentage of the funding in the recove act go towards construction. of all of the funding included in the bill, the transportation funding has resulted in savings and creating jobs faster than we even expected. the transportation-h.u.d. appropriations bill continues this investment and our commitment to utilize all of the troops available to continue this economic recovery that has already begun to take hold. included in h.r. 3288 is $41.8 billion to improve and repair our nation's aging highway infrastructure. the bill includes more than $10 billion for federal transit administration, which will help transit agencies meet increased public demand for mass transit.
this not only provides more transportation options to americans during tough economic times, it also decreases traffic congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions. this bill adds another $4 billion to develop and construct a national system of high speed rail. building on the commitment we begun in the recovery bill. this is the first major investment in transportation since the 1960's. high speed rail moves more people at a lower cost, at a faster speed and with less impact on the environment than does road transportation. we have developed the noes advanced highway and aviation -- we have developed the most advanced highway and aviation system, but in comparison our train system in nations such as germany, france and china have clearly exceeded what we have done here in america. speaking from experience of my own delegation, the members
that represent upstate new york, we've committed to working in a bipartisan effort to make high speed rail a reality across upstate new york. we have done so because we realize that numerous benefits that the improvement in our transportation system will have as a result of high speed rail. not only for upstate new york but for the nation as a whole. just as we saw over a century ago with the construction of the erie can canal, streamlining the goods between the eastern seaboard in chicago, the freight gateway to the west coast, will benefit cities at both ends and also cities across the country through which the line runs. madam speaker, this is just a sampling of the important programs and initiatives that the transportation-hud transportations act will fund in fiscal year 2010. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. thank you, and i reserve the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from new york, mr. arcuri, for the time, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: last month in the middle of the night, the majority called an emergency meeting of the rules committee in order to withdraw a modified open rule which had previously been passed by the committee regarding the commerce, justice and science appropriations bill and to replace it with a draconian rule that severely limited the ability of members from both sides of the aisle to bring amendments to the floor for debate and a vote. that unnecessary and unfortunate procedure began the
process of overturning over two centuries of precedent of open debate on appropriations bills in this house. historically appropriations bills, such as the one being brought to the floor today, have come to the floor under an open rule, a rule that allows any member from either side of the aisle to offer amendments if the amendments are germane. but now the majority has unwisely ended that hallowed tradition and is using the rules committee to repress the ability of members to offer amendments. each and every appropriations bill considered since that late night, or should i say early
morning, meeting has restricted the prerogative of members to offer amendments. instead, the speaker and the chairman of the appropriations committee, through the majority on the rules committee, they decide who will offer amendments, they decide exactly who shapes the way congress spends the taxpayers' dollars. as of the last count, that doctrine, the pelosi-obey doctrine, has blocked over 600 amendments. 600 times already members on both sides of the aisle in this house have been denied the ability to represent their constituents on appropriations bills. the new doctrine and process not only breaks two centuries
of tradition and precedent in the house, it also runs contrary to one of the central tenets of the democrats' campaign. during the 2006 campaign, they claimed that they would run congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. on december 6 of that year, speaker pelosi reiterated her campaign promise. she said, and i quote, we promised the american people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will, end quote. but here we are today with congress for the first time in history completely shutting down the frelf open -- the previously opened appropriations process. when the process was first closed down last month, i explained to the majority that
they should be cognizant of the repercussions of overturning two centuries of precedent. they did not listen. they have continued to bring to this floor restrictive rule after restrictive rule, 10 so far. although i feel that the majority has caused lasting damage to the traditions of this house, there's still a chance for the majority to return to the long-held tradition of fairness and openness of debate on appropriations bills. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that we can return to regular order, to restore the long-held tradition of the house of openness on appropriations bills. i once again remind my colleagues that jorts are never eternal -- majorities are never eternal.
the precedent being set now may be used by majorities in the future. and this is not the appropriate way to run the house. it is unnecessary. it is inappropriate. it is unfair. i think it's time, madam speaker, that we overturn that doctrine, the pelosi-obey doctrine and restore the tradition of openness in the appropriations process. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from colorado, one of the new distinguished members of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. polis: i thank my colleague, mr. arcuri, for the time. and i rise today, madam speaker, in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill. madam speaker, right now our nation's transportation and infrastructure continues to
fight a losing battle with our growing needs, shrinking revenues and dwindling highway trust fund. meanwhile, our public housing assistance and community support programs feel the strain of additional demand. more and more families and individuals across our country who face layoffs, foreclosures and the economic waves that have rippled through never every sector of our -- through ever sector of our economy. madam speaker this bill will address those particularly hard hit in a responsible and thorough manner. and i thank chairman oliver and their -- and his staff for a job well done. this bill will include a commuter rail system. this bill also reflects our growing understanding of where our transportation system needs to go in the future and how to get there. we understand that the sooner we address things like vehicles miles traveled, congestion, smart growth and complete streets the sooner we will see the environmental health and economic benefits that the status quo is currently
lacking. easing congestion is crucial for my district in colorado. even the smallest amount of congestion means many economies impacted as people moving goods on highway 70 and 36, two of the main arteries in my district connects through every main community. highway 70 is the lifeblood of our mountain communities in colorado. this bill will help ease congestion in places like eagle, a growing community in the mountains. where until a few years ago rush hour was like a long live line in veil or too many rafts on the colorado river. but by now this is a community that comes to a halt with rush hour traffic that combines with regional airport traffic to yield real implications. we all know that our nation's housing market has been at the center of our economic troubles and that our economic troubles have psycheled more layoffs and
foreclosures. it will make housing affordable in my district. it will not only provide affordable rental housing but also make the dream of homeownership a reality. this is the no merely a housing subsidy program. it promotes personal responsibility by requiring enrollment in financial literacy and job training trams. in our economic complimet, these kind of training programs are critical. to help our recovery, this bill extends the loan limits enacted in the american recovery and reinvestment act through 2010 and provides for the continuation of the home equity conversion program. madam speaker, this bill is critical for our country because it's important for our economy, our environment and it builds and repairs the physical infrastructure of our nation. i urge swift passage of the rule and the bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?
mr. diaz-balart: madam speaker, it's a pleasure to yield four minutes to my friend from iowa, mr. latham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for four minutes. mr. latham: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman from florida for the time. madam speaker, rise in opposition to this rule because i do not want to lend my support to a politically cooked process that freezes the american people out of having their say through a constructive amendment process. i know the large number of the majority members do not want this process either. for the same reasons that i don't. . the majority may think they are freezing out the minority, but they are freezing out all of our constituents. these closed and structured rules are designed to avoid the tough votes and those familiar with the situation know that.
on the surface, the rules may be promoted as a means of moving the process along in a timely fashion and there may be some tone of truth to that. however, the real issue is the difficult votes and that's sad, because that's what we get paid to do here. we don't get paid to duck tough votes around here. i have to wonder sometimes if our predecessors from both parties are not looking down from the big chamber in the sky and wondering what in god's name are we doing to the process that they've left us. one thing we know we're doing is cheating the american people. the administration says that this bill is about making long-term infrastructure investments. if that is true, then our investors and our constituents should have a say-so on how the investments are made. right now, they have no such say
and that's a shame. as an example, i had an amendment to move $3 billion in park money in a high-speed rail appropriation to use in the highway trust fund, where we desperately need those funds. the administration wants us to bail out the highway trust fund for those of you who don't know that. and i want to note, too, in the stimulus package there are 8 billion sitting there for high-speed rail, none of which will be spent this year. also, there was an agreement between the administration and congress saying that with that $8 billion, we would appropriate $1 billion a year for the next five years. my amendment would have honored the administration's request in that agreement, leaving $1 billion in the high-speed rail account. my amendment was not made in order. that $3 billion could have been used as an investment in my
state and all of your states in a much needed investment in the highway infrastructure that would actually create jobs now. for some, however, that would have been a tough vote, because even though that money won't be spent on high-speed rail for a couple of years at least, a vote to transfer it to the trust fund where it's needed today would be a vote to remove it from the rapid rail category now. a vote that would not have been politically fashionable for some in this chamber and that's the reason it's not in order. the net result is that an important investment amendment will now not be put to the investors. the taxpayers. instead, we will institutionally duck the vote and rob the investors of their say-so in this worth while investment. i want to say that this bill
could have been a bipartisan bill. chairman olver and i worked together all through this process. we had hearings. we worked in a constructive way. and i think it is an outrage and an insult to that chairman olver that the rules committee -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. latham: insult for the rules committee to say that you are questioning his ability to handle issues involved in this bill. this could have been a bipartisan process. this could have been something that everyone in this house could support if, in fact, we had a process that respected the chairman, his abilities, his competence and respected the interest s of all of our constituents. to close out people, our constituents, the people who own
these investments, is simply wrong. and i ask everyone to please vote against this outrageous rule and respect the chairman, respect what their rights should be in this house of representatives and have been since the beginning. and i would encourage everyone to vote against this outrageous rule. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: before i recognize my colleague from new york, i would just like to make a point, and that is, throughout history, we have seen vision on the part of people and it's that vision that brought columbus to the new world, it's that vision that built the panama canal, it's the vision that built the erie canal and the vision in the eisenhower highway system. this bill contains that vision. it has money in it for high-speed rail. that is our vision for the future and the kind of vision that people sent us here to
congress to continue and it's that kind of vision that this bill contains. with that, madam speaker, i yield three minutes to one of the leaders in transportation in this country, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and i rise in support of the rule for the transportation and h.u.d. appropriations act. i think that the transportation appropriation in this bill is excellent, but i'm going to focus on a different aspect of it. i want to thank chairman olver for rental assistance and project-base rental assistance, which is $3.7 billion more than last year. this should be enough to fund section 8 rental assistance and provide $75 million for 10,000 new incremental vouchers for homeless veterans. the bill has $350 million for
people with aids program, $50 million than was appropriated last year. this is a great victory for these programs and i applaud the chairman and the committee to secure these badly needed resources. i want to thank my colleagues who signed on to my letter in support for increases in section 8 housing. our letters were ignored and we were forced to offer an amendment to increase funding. we were successful in passing amendments to increase funding for these programs. i'm pleased this year because of the efforts of the chairman that was not necessary for us to come to the floor with an amendment. there is a need for affordable housing and will outpace the supply. much more needs to be done. i understand the financial services committee is working on legislation to reform the section 8 program and authorize $150,000 additional new vouchers and looking forward to pass that
legislation so we can address the severe housing crisis by substantially increasing funding for vouchers. while we requested $360 million, the national aids housing coalition estimates over 3.2 billion is required to meet the housing needs with those living with hiv-aids. while we can do more when it comes to funding, i recognize it is no small feeth to increase funding for section 8 and $350 million. i commend the chairman for his leadership and thank him for his continued support for these important housing initiatives. i thank the chairman for their initiatives in the transportation field and the funds they have brought to this. and i want to express while i have the opportunity my agreement with chairman oberstar that it is essential that we pass this year re-authorization of the transportation bill and not put it off for 18 months.
if we are going to start catching up to the necessity to keep our infrastructure from falling apart and also if we are go to go get more stimulus in this economy that we so desperately need during this recession. i support the rule. i thank the chairman for yielding me time and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i ask my friend if he has any additional speakers? mr. arcuri: we have two. mr. diaz-balart: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i yield two minutes to another gentleman from new york, one of the freshman here, mr. massa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. massa: madam speaker, thank you. to my colleague from new york i appreciate and i rise not only in support of the rule and support of the underlying bill but opposition to one of the unprecedentedly large amendments that is being allowed to be
offered to this bill. i have sat here listening to a long conversation about the lack of allocation of amendments and yet i have yet to hear the reality that in this house, this rule and this congress, the majority has offered an unprecedented number of amendments to all forms of legislation heretoforenot seen. the amendment today that i would like to discuss is one that reaches far down into this bill to strip out a very small amount of money for a town where i come from. i know that many people don't know where hornell, new york is. it's not on the big maps, but it's where i'm from. in that town, the center of a bustling train industry is a small ymca and that small ymca is a community center that offers basic functions, but is a
functioning gym for st. ann's catholic school and it is a cardio rehabilitation center for a local st. james private hospital. with unprecedented transparency and small amount of pride i have fought to place not billions, not hundreds of millions, not even tens of millions, but a very small amount of money to service and return a fair value of taxation back to the community. what i propose to do and what i'm fighting against by stopping an amendment that was stripped out with an open heart and open conversation with those on the other side of the aisle that would deny the citizens of this small town a return for their tax investment is to help that small community in whatever way possible. i rise in support of this bill and rule and support of the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore:ment --
the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i yield to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i rise in support of the rule and the legislation, h.r. 3288, the transportation authorization bill -- appropriating bill, excuse me. i want to express my support for the passenger rail funding within the bill that amounts to $4 billion. president obama, chairman olver and my colleagues on the appropriations committee have demonstrated their commitment by providing funding in this bill that enable the urban, rural and you suburban communities to be connected by a system that will deliver safe, swift, efficient and economic travel across our nation.
texas in particular and the congressional delegation needs passenger and high-speed rail and we know throughout the country it's needed. funding for higher speed rail will reduce congestion and pollution, create jobs and connect communities. the deployment of rural rail throughout the designated corridors in my state and throughout the country is something that is needed and will help hans businesses alike. the san antonio-austin corridor is booming. passenger rail is crucial for the economic development. it is vital that we preserve the recommended levels of passenger rail. it is terribly underdeveloped and underfunded when compared to france, italy, china and japan. so we need to make that investment as quickly as
possible. and the high-speed rail is needed. in texas, we have intellectual capacity and technology to be able to make this happen and make this happen as quickly as possible. my colleagues in the south texas have joined me in support of this effort and hopefully get this bill passed. as a member of the committee, i want to encourage everyone to support this piece of legislation that allows an opportunity for to begin to look with that vision to the future. we need to get on board and support the $4 billion funding contained in h.r. 3288 that deals with rail. i encourage both house and texas colleagues to support the piece of legislation that we have before us and support the bill. thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i ask my friend if he has additional speakers. mr. arcuri: we have no additional speakers.
mr. diaz-balart: i thank my friend. this has been an interesting debate. there are apparently some discussions, madam speaker, going on. what i'll do at this point is to reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. .
the intention of the majority to try to amend the rule. mr. arcuri: we are at the present time -- i'm sorry. we a at the present time reviewing that option and we are looking at it. but i would like -- if i may -- i would like to say in the meantime just to say -- to make one more point about this bill. mr. diaz-balart: well, on your time. mr. arcuri: on my time, yes. mr. diaz-balart: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i thank my friend and obviously have great respect for him and know that he'll continue to speak on the merits of the legislation being brought to the floor today. as confirmed by my friend, it seems that the majority is considering amending the rule, i am told, to eliminate the provision which allows members to modify the amendatory
instructions in their amendment to account for changes in the bill that occurred during the printing process. it is my understanding that the majority fears that the minority will exploit that provision to change our amendments, even though that has not happened thus far. if that takes place, i think it will be another example of how the majority is rushing legislation to the floor without giving this system the necessary time to work. if we had an extra day we wouldn't need this provision at all because the bill would be printed and members could read the bill. but because the rules committee and the chairman of the proachingses committee are determined to -- appropriations committee are determined to push legislation through without sufficient time for the house to review the legislation, we needed
sufficient time. rather than giving members time to read the bill, they want to run the risk that members' amendments might not be in order. so in short, madam speaker, if this amendment to the rule would take place i think would be another example of how the speaker and the chairman of the appropriations committee they value their schedule over the rights of members to be heard on the floor. and i reserve at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i thank my friend -- the speaker pro tempore: is recognized. mr. arcuri: thank you. this is somewhat of a technical change that we are contemplating, but i would say this. i think what one side or one
person views as rushing a piece of legislation, i think the other side could very well argue it's necessary and we need to do it. you know, one of the things that i hear from constituents at home is, you know, congress needs to put aside the partisan bickering and move forward with the people's business. and i would submit that that is exactly what we are trying to do. there's nothing more important for congress to do than to ensure that the funding to run government is available. now, obviously both sides of the aisle have a dramatic difference on how that funding should occur, but i would submit to my friend from florida -- and i mean that, my good friend and colleague from the rules committee -- we have a distinct difference of what a timetable is. we believe we are here to ensure that we do the people's business and that is done and that we do the funding in appropriation bills in a timely fashion. so we are working on that, and we are considering the
amendment and we will have an answer for that very shortly. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. arcuri: i'd yield to my friend from texas. mr. rodriguez: i know that the amendments being brought forward and their concerns that were not going to be listed was the fact that the rules committee did the right thing in not considering them since a lot of these amendments that were talked about earlier, mr. chairman, was amendments that dealt more appropriately with the authorizing committee. this is an appropriating bill, and should not be handling legislation in this manner so that in appropriating bills we don't have those amendments that should go with that committee. and we need to respect the committee on the authorizing side to making sure that they do the right thing and do the authorizing and not through an appropriating bill. so i know that this is a technical matter that will hopefully get dealt with.
but in response to the discussions regarding the previous lack of -- so-called lack of an opportunity to prepare those amendments that you had, those amendments belong in the authorizing bill and not only the appropriating bill. and let me just say this is a major piece of legislation. it's a bill that needs to -- needs to be passed. throughout this country there's a tremendous need for our infrastructure. this is a bill that would allow an opportunity to create jobs, additional jobs and make things happen. and especially we haven't moved in the fast rail system where it makes an investment and begins to look at resources in that area. and that's one of the areas in this country we're lacking and we have to have additional resources. so i just wanted to take an opportunity to share the importance of making sure that we pass this piece of legislation. thank you.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. arcuri: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. mr. diaz-balart: well, madam speaker, we're ready to close. my understanding is that the majority hasn't finalized its amendment to further restrict this process. for example, the original schedule that was put out by the chairman of the appropriations committee before the decision was made to end two centuries of precedented and not have open amendments on appropriations bills called for the transportation-hud, two days of debate. but the rule they're bringing to the floor limits it to one day of debate. now they have an amendment to the rule. apparently they want to bring forth to further limit debate. so i'm waiting until our colleagues have finalized their amendment to further restrict
this process before obviously i close. so having said that, i would ask my friend and colleague if he's ready with his further restrictive amendment? the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman yielding? mr. diaz-balart: i am asking him a question. yes, i'll yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: i do take exception as your characterization of it -- mr. diaz-balart: the question is with regard to the amendment of the rule, are you ready with your amendment to the rule? mr. arcuri: we are not ready. mr. diaz-balart: we'll just reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: thank you, madam speaker. and i want to discuss again, if may -- may i inquire first off as to the amount of time left on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: 12 minutes remaining for the gentleman from new york, and 15 1/2 remaining for the gentleman
from florida. mr. arcuri: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: thank you. i'd like to speak just for a couple more minutes again about the underlying importance of passing this rule and the underlying bill. i think there is nothing more important than transportation and infrastructure for government to ensure exists. when you look back at the history of this great institution, the first standing committee was in fact the transportation and infrastructure committee, although then not called by that very name, but it was critically important the framers saw the importance of having an infrastructure, of having the ability to render our ports navigateable, having functional roads. at that time, of course, rail and airlines were not even imagined, but as we transformed
our nation it became a critical part of our infrastructure. so it is my belief that this bill and the -- this rule and the underlying bill are critically important. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to lay out on the record the amendment that we may be offering. the amendment to the rule is actually rather minor. the amendment will strike from the rule a provision that is no longer necessary. there was some concern that the final version of the g.p.o. print might not have the same page and line numbers as the ordered reported version. that did not occur, so the language in the rule to preserve the members' right to fix their amendments is no longer needed. so as i indicated earlier, it is clear that this proposed amendment, and, again, i have not offered it yet, but this
proposed amendment is really of a technical nature to allow a correction in the rule that was passed yesterday out of the rules committee. so with that, madam speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. diaz-balart: madam speaker, if the amendment is so simple as my friend has pointed out, where is it? we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves.
mr. arcuri: may i reclaim my time? may i be recognized? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. arcuri: i thank my friend for his cooperation in this. as i indicated earlier, we are considering offering this amendment. and with that i would again just like to talk a little bit more about the underlying bill and if i may recognize my friend, again, from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. arcuri: thank you. the bill that we considered bill, the t-hud bill is important the economy in the state that it's in, people believe that the best thing to
do for the economy is spending and developing our infrastructure. that which we are supposed to do. that which we are asked to do. and one of the things in the transportation and infrastructure committee that we debate on a very regular basis is the surface transportation re-authorization bill, which will come up this year. and we clearly believe that it is critically important. that is important not only for our infrastructure but it is a way of creating jobs. it's -- it is what we were sent to congress to do to ensure that our roads are safe, to ensure that our airports run and function the way they are supposed to. and to ensure that our rail transportation infrastructure is what it should be. with that, madam speaker, i would say that at this time we have decided we will not be offering the amendment. therefore, i'd reserve the balance of my time and i am prepared to close.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: well, i thank ply -- my friend and i know that even though, you know, he had described the amendment and i had argued against it and now the decision has come not to make it, not to propose the amendment further limiting this process. so i thank my friend for having obtained a decision from his side of the aisle. at this point, madam speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the ranking member, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he might consume. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i as always thank my friend from miami for yielding me this time, and i have to say that i
was sitting downstairs watching the proceedings here on the floor, and i have to admit, i've been privileged to serve for two decades on the house rules committee and for eight of those years i was privileged to serve as chairman of the house rules committee. and i think we've moved into unchartered waters. i know there have been difficulties and the challenge of trying to amend rules before in the past and it has been done. it's often been done by unanimous consent where we had a bipartisan consensus that some minor technical change needed to be made. . he well, doesn't appear to be the case right now. as i listen to the exchanges taking place, i have to admit to being just a little bit confused and i suspect a number of our colleagues who don't have the
opportunity to serve on the rules committee may be equally confused. i think the bottom line here is very clear, and i heard a new member from new york take the floor earlier and decry the number of amendments that have been filed by members of the minority, indicating that this was somehow unprecedented. well, the only thing that is unprecedented here, madam speaker, and i'm sure mr. diaz-balart has pointed this out, is the fact that we have never before in the history of our republic gotten to what now i guess is appropriations bill number 10 or -- thank you, hugh. anyway, we have nearly completed the appropriations process. i know after this bill, we will have the defense appropriations bill and everyone's holding up numbers for me. i have to say i appreciate it. we have two left after this.
you are helping me make my point, never before in the history of the republic have we seen the appropriations process close down from the very beginning. we began the process with what was described in old congress as a modified open rule, which required pre-printing. and after 20 minutes of debate after that modified open rule, we shut down the process and required the filing of amendments. now, here we are with two appropriations bills left and the rules committee members during debate are seeing some sort of conflict taking place i believe the appropriations committee and the rules committee. and one of the things that we pointed to throughout the debate on these last eight or nine appropriations bills has been the fact that the rules committee has really been controlled by the appropriations
committee. i mean, the entire body has been controlled by the chairman of the appropriations committee because the rules committee has simply marched in lock step to the request that the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee has made. again, it's unprecedented. and the exchange that i have just seen taken place here on the house floor is unprecedented. and i hope we can learn from this, madam speaker. we can learn there is something called regular order, which means that the democrats and republicans, the representatives of the american people, the representatives of democrats, republicans and independents and people who aren't even registered to vote, can have their voice heard in the appropriations process as has been the case for 220 years if we could have what is known as an open amendment process. again, this is not about republicans, it's not about
democrats, it's about the american people and their voice, their voice in the people's house, which is what this place is known as. and so, madam speaker, it saddens me we have come to this point. and i hope that my friend from utica and my friend from miami will be able to bring about a reconciliation on this challenge we have been following. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i ask my friend, does he have any additional speakers? mr. arcuri: no additional speakers. mr. diaz-balart: again, i thank him for obtaining a decision. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: obtaining a decision from his leadership and in effect, not moving forward with an amendment to further
limit, further restrict a restrictive rule. i'm going to be asking for a no on the previous question, madam speaker so that we can amend this rule so we can go back to regular order, so we can allow for an open process of debate. there is no question that this rule that the majority has brought forth will help, will contribute to cementing a dangerous precedent that the majority continued to set last month. it will further damage bipartisanship and come ity in this body. i urge my colleagues to vote no so we can uphold the tradition of this house, return to the tradition of this house of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills.
i think if we do not do so, the majority will come to regret their decision to close down the deliberative process of the house on appropriations bills. i think it's more unfortunate what the majority has done than they realize. overturning two centuries of precedent is a significant action and it will inner to the detriment of each and every member and each constituent of each and every member of this house forever. as i said before, majorities are never permanent. distinguished colleague on the rules committee who is serving his first term, member of the majority party said, i've never seen an open rule in the appropriations process, i'm paraphrasing, but don't expect
to be in the majority forever, so one day i expect to see an open rule on an appropriations bill. well, that was an illustratetive statement in many ways, one that he recognizes that the trend that has been set by the majority of restricting the debate process on appropriations bills has now been set in a fairly definitive form, but he expects that in the future, majorities will act differently, and that may not be the case, because once precedents are broken, a new precedent exists for future majorities, and that would be most unfortunate if forever the members of this house are denied the ability to introduce amendments in an open
process on appropriations bills. so, madam speaker, i thank you for your courtesy and i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from new york. mr. arcuri: thank you for your recognition. i would like to thank my good friend from miami for his cooperation in management of this rule and for his courtesy in that regard. i appreciate it very much. madam speaker, the transportation-h.u.d. appropriations act funds some of the most important initiatives that pay for everything from roads, bridges and railroads to housing for veterans and low-income families. in my opening remarks, i discussed the critical investments that this bill would make in our transportation system. this bill invests in housing
programs for vulnerable populations, including retirees, people with disabilities, veterans and even children. the funding is even more essential during these tough economic times. this bill includes funding to address the problem of homelessness among our veterans. all too often, the men and women who sacrifice are hit the hardest during economic crises. we owe our veterans for their service and honor the commitment made to them. they should not have to return home to be confronted by the possibility of poverty or homelessness. to address this, h.r. 3288 includes $75 million for veterans affairs housing vouchers, to provide 10,000 of these vouchers for our homeless veterans and provides $8.7 billion to provide housing to 1.3 million low-income families and individuals, 2/3 of whom are elderly or disabled.
it includes another $1 billion to rehabilitate and build new housing for low-income seniors. currently, there are 10 eligible seniors on the waiting list for each unit available for housing. in america, it is unacceptable that our greatest generation is faced with this shortage. h.r. 3288 contains important velfts to revitalize our local communities including $4.6 billion for community development block grants, $25 million for brownfield development and $250 million to fund the hope 6 competitive grant programs to transfer into sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods. madam speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that must be priorities, must be priorities especially when the economy slows. the funding that h.r. 32288 provides will ensures jobs will
continue to be created and our economy recovers. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time having been yielded back, the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays having been requested, those in favor of the vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. nunes: madam speaker, i rise
to question the privilege of the house and offer a resolution previously noticed. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: may 25, 2007, u.s. district court judge wagner issued a ruling that directed the bureau of reclamation to protect the meadow. whereas on december 15, 2008, the united states fish and wildlife service based on the wagner ruling issued a biological opinion of the delta smelt that permanent reduced water exported from the sacramento-san joaquin river delta which is delivered to residents in the san joaquin. according to the university of california at davis study, based on the water reductions outlined in the delta smelt biological opinion revenue for 2009 will be
$2.2 billion and job losses at 80,000. whereas according to the u.s. bureau of labor statistics, the unemployment rate in the san joaquin rate has reached the highest level in the nation. whereas region-wide employment is nearly 20% and some cities have an unemployment rate of nearly 40%. whereas thousands of people who once relied on employment in the agricultural sector are now unemployed and struggling to mean their most basic needs such as providing food for their families. whereas on march 1, 2009 "the sacramento bee" have reported that thousands of people have been turned away from local food banks. whereas on april 14, 2009, the fresno county, california board of county superviseors proclaimed that the man made drought has created an economic crisis.
on june 4, 2009, despite the ongoing man made drought in california, the national marine fisheries services issued on the salmon central valley field head, the southern population of north american green sturgeon and killer whales which reduces water supplies to californians. on june 19, 2009, governor schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for fresno county, california and petitioned president obama to declare the county a federal disaster area. on june 258, 2009, the secretary of the interior, ken salazar visited fresno, california and held a town hall meeting in which nearly 1,000 people attended to express their dissatisfaction about the lack of action by the obama administration. on july 6, 2009, los angeles times reported that interior
secretary ken salazar's town hall meeting on june 28, 2009, the commissioner mike connor pledged to provide financial aid to starving families and an addressens member replied, we don't want welfare, but want water. cbs news reported that thousands of san joaquin valley farmers protested which houses nance pelosi's district office. on june 29, 2009, cbs 5 eyewitness news reported the protestors claimed that nancy pelosi and congressman george miller for the water shortage in the san joaquin valley. on june 29, 2009, cbs 5 eyewitness said protestors were holding signs e.s.a. puts fish ahead of people, congress
created drought and new and endangered species, the california farmer. . whereas the "sacramento bee" reported that protesters marched to demand the federal government end the manmade drought. whereas they held open roll call vote for house resolution 366 to change the vote, whereas in this vote, house democrat leadership was seen on the floor, pressuring members of congress to change their aye vote to a nee vote to defeat the nunes amendment which would have helped end the water crisis in california. whereas on july 8, 2009, in the markup on the water and related agencies markup, 2010, a debate was held on the calvert amendment which would have restored water to californians.
whereas david obey said, recognize there are certain actions that if you take this bill won't pass, your earmarks in the bill won't become law. whereas chairman obey violated clause 16 of house rule 23 by linking passage of the calvert amendment to loss of earmarks, whereas on july 14, 2009, despite historical tradition of open rules during the appropriations process, the rules committee blocked an amendment to the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act 2010 that would have restored water deliveri to californians. whereas for two years, the house of representatives has known about the manmade drought in california without taking legislative action to resolve the crisis. whereas, the lack of action by the house of representatives has demonstrated that fish are more important than families. whereas article 1, section 8 of the united states constitution
enumerates that the congress shall have the power to provide for the general welfare of the united states. whereas the house of representatives has willfully and knowingly failed to provide for the general welfare of the san joaquin valley of california and whereas the failure of the house of representatives to carry out its duties have subjected the house to public ridicule and damaged the dignity and integrity of the house of representatives, now, therefore, be it resolved that the committee on natural resources is instructed to discharge h.r. 3105, the turn on the pumps act of 2009, for immediate consideration by the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from california wish to present an argument on why the resolution qualifies as privileged for immediate consideration. mr. nunes: yes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.
mr. nunes: questions considered under the rules -- privileges of the house are those that affect the whole house this privileged resolution allows us to rectify the problems the democrat leadership has created in california. if we move forward with this today, 40,000 people can go back to work and we can move on and everybody will be fine. so i urge the passing of this resolution today and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair is prepared to rule. in evaluating the resolution offered by the gentleman from california, under the standards of rule 9, the chair must be mindful of a fundamental prince pm illuminated by annotations of precedent in section 706 of the house rules and manual that is that a question of the privileges of the house may not be invoked to prescribe a rule or order of business for the house. the chair finds the resolution
offered by the gentleman from california, by directing action with respect to a bill that is pending before a standing committee, prescribes a rule or order of business. under a long and well settled line of precedent presently cullmy nating in the ruling of july 17, fwine, such a resolution -- 2009, such a resolution cannot qualify as a question of the privileges of the house. the chair therefore holds that the resolution is not privileged under rule 9 for consideration ahead of other business. instead, the gentleman may introduce the resolution through the hopper in the regular course of business. mr. nunes: madam speaker, i appeal the ruling of the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is -- >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. >> i move to table the appeal of the ruling the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the ruling to table. the question is on the motion to table.
mr. nunes: on that, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all in favor of that motion will answer aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. nunes: on that, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yace and nays are ordered. -- the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20 the 15-minute vote on the motion to table the appeal will be followed by five-minute votes on departmenting house resolution 669 and suspending the rules and adopted house resolution 566 and house resolution 350. members this a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 249 and the nays are 179. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 669 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 124, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 13 8, making proningses for the department of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal
nays are 183, the resolution is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch to suspend the rules and agree to h.res. 566 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 566, resolution congratulating the 2008-2009 national basketball association champions, the los angeles lakers, on an outstanding and historic season. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to u
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 413, the nays are 8, recorded present, eight. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch to suspend the rules and agree to h. res. 350 on which yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: resolution honoring the life and accomplishments of harry cal ast for his invaluable contributions to the national past time of baseball, the community and the nation. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 425, the nays are zero. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 426, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. olver: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the alwill suspend, the house is not in order. will members take their discussions off the floor to the cloakroom. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. olver: i ask -- i ask unanimous consent that will all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and stepped their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on h.r.
3288. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 669 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3288. the chair appoints the gentleman from arkansas, mr. snyder, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3288, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule
the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. olver and the gentleman from iowa, mr. latham, each will control 0 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. olver: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. and hopefully that will be less than five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olver: thank you, mr. chairman. it is my privilege and pleasure to present the fiscal year 2010 transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations bill to the house. this bill is a product of many hours of hearings and briefings along with bipartisan input and excellent subcommittee member participation. i especially would like to recognize the important contributions of my ranking member, tom latham, in putting this bill together and as with any healthy relationships, we
don't always agree, but i greatly appreciate his partnership and his input, which has made the bill better. i want to take a moment to recognize the hard work of staff, specifically on the minority side, tina, alison and doug. and on the majority side, kate, laura, david, lisa, alice jeannine, andrew and blair. they have spent many late nights putting this bill together and we would not be here today without their dedication. there has been cloose communication and coordination -- close communication and coordination between the minority and majority staff throughout this process and the bill is better for that input.
recognizing that today may be long, my remarks will be brief. this is a nonpartisan bill as bills related to transportation and housing should be. it invests in our nation's infrastructure during a transformational period for both the department of transportation and the department of housing and urban development. the bill provides $123.1 billion in budgetary resources, $48 million below the president's budget request. within housing and urban development, this bill recognizes the foreclosure rates remain high and the current economic climate and weak job market have increased demand for affordable housing. to that extent, this bill provides $47.1 billion for h.u.d. and targets most of the $1.6 billion increase over the president's budget to programs that the previous administration
repeatedly attempted to reduce or zero out and thus, have not kept up with the need. in contrast, transportation is a budget influx, covering programs that are in transition with major aviation authorizations pending. the authorizing committees have either passed or begun marking up multiyear legislation reform to these fracture programs. the bill includes $75.8 billion in transportation infrastructure investments. that is $1.66 billion below the president's request. i would like to note that in supporting the transformations taking place at each department, this bill has emphasized this bill has emphasized investments in five key areas.